Get Layer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: bounds semantics differ for content vs comp layers, bounds is null for 3D layers, and values are sampled at a given time. It still doesn't say what happens when layer_ids is passed or how missing layers behave.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence plus a short clarifying clause; the key scope ('or several: layer_ids') is front-loaded. The nested parentheticals about bounds make it slightly hard to parse but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and it does enumerate the returned fields plus the 3D-null edge case. The remaining gap is the time unit and multi-id behavior, which keeps it short of complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that layer_id is singular and layer_ids accepts several, and that time defaults to 0 — useful mapping. However it omits the unit of time (seconds vs frames) and whether the two id parameters are mutually exclusive, which are the most likely sources of misuse.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a layer') and enumerates the data returned (transform, text, effects, expressions, masks, bounds), which separates it from get_comp or list_properties. It never names a sibling to contrast with, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_properties or get_keyframes. The only usage signal is the implicit 'this is a read' plus the note that time defaults to 0.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.